linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Check for immutable flag in fallocate path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D6DFDAA.3060006@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:19:54 +0100
From:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check for immutable flag in fallocate path

Il 27/02/2011 23:49, Ted Ts'o ha scritto:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 05:50:21PM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> 2011/2/21 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>:
>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 09:26:32AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>>>> From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> All fs must check for the immutable flag in their fallocate callback.
>>>> It's possible to have a race condition in this scenario: an application
>>>> open a file in read/write and it does something, meanwhile root set the
>>>> immutable flag on the file, the application at that point can call
>>>> fallocate with success. Only Ocfs2 check for the immutable flag at the
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> Please add the check in fs/open.c:do_fallocate() so that it covers all
>>> filesystems.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The check should be done after the fs got the inode mutex lock.
> 
> Why?  None of the other places which check the IMMUTABLE flag do so

I add to my previous response an other point: IMHO each fs should check
for it because after the inclusion of punch hole patch, the fs
can/cannot check for the append-only flag. So XFS (it supports the
"unreserve") should check even for append. I think we don't want to
allow this operation for an append-only file, isn't it? About this point
I'll update and resend my patch.

Marco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/